Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7 Reports

7.1 Tasman District Council Delegations Register 2025 - 2028

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Leith Townshend, General Counsel; Robyn Byrne, Governance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-12-2

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To adopt the Tasman District Council Delegations Register for the 2025 – 2028 triennium.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At the 13 November 2025 Council meeting, the Council established its committees, subcommittees and other subordinate decision-making bodies in order to assist with the governance functions of the Council. Joint committees with Nelson City Council are scheduled to be adopted on 11 December 2025.

2.2 The committees and subordinate decision-making bodies established by Council at its inaugural meeting are unable to meet until Council has resolved the terms of reference in respect of each one.

2.3 It is considered best practice for the delegated responsibility of each committee, sub-committee and subordinate decision-making body to be captured in a Delegations Register and adopted by Council early in each triennium. This ensures clarity when Committees’ are making decisions under delegation.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Tasman District Council Delegations Register 2025 - 2028 report RCN25-12-2; and

2. adopts the Tasman District Council Delegations Register for the 2025 – 2028 council term (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and

3. notes that the delegations and terms of reference in the Joint Committees are made subject to the same delegations and terms of reference being approved by Nelson City Council; and

4. authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to update the Delegations Register as required by Council resolutions, legislative changes or minor administrative changes.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Delegations are powers and responsibilities that the Council allows committees, sub-committees or Council staff to exercise on the Council’s behalf. These powers and responsibilities come from legislation, Council-made bylaws and policies or the Council’s general powers as a body corporate.

4.2 Previously the Council has maintained a Delegations Register that included both governance and staff delegations. The staff delegations section has been removed from the Register and in the future will be included in a digital register designed specifically for New Zealand local government. The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for staff delegations.

4.3 The Draft Delegations Register 2025-2028 is attached (Attachment 1)

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 A full review of delegations has been undertaken, and this report discusses proposed changes to the previously adopted Delegations Register and a change log has been provided (Attachment 2).

5.2 Terms of reference have been developed to provide for the change in committee structure adopted at the 13 November meeting, providing for merged committees aligning with the organisational structure.

5.3 Council’s two standing committees of the whole Council, Strategy Finance and Performance and Environment Regulatory and Operations Committees are proposed to have with full decision-making responsibilities, except for what cannot be delegated. Staff have updated their terms of reference to reflect this.

5.4 An Information Forum, with full membership has been established with terms of reference allowing for multiple ways of receiving information and future-focused reports to be provided. While not a formal meeting under LGOIMAs these meetings will be open to the public and include a public forum.

5.5 Joint committees with Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have been reviewed and changes include aligning naming conventions, updating membership and reporting requirements.

5.6 Two new joint Advisory Groups have been proposed. The Terms of Reference for the Joint Climate Change Advisory Group and the Joint Building Authority Advisory Group are scheduled to be brought to Council for consideration in 2026.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 There are no direct budgetary consequences related to the decision to approve the Delegations Register.

6.2 To the extent that delegations to Committees allow the spending of ratepayer funds this can only be within budgets already approved by Council. If there is a request for unbudgeted expenditure then this will need to be approved by Council.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 Council can choose to adopt the Delegations Register presented either in whole or in part, or to not adopt the Delegations Register as presented.

7.2 Any proposed changes to the terms of reference to the joint committees will need to also be approved by Nelson City Council.

7.3 Unless powers are delegated by Council, responsibility for decision-making remains with Council.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 Clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides for the Council to delegate certain powers and functions to the Chief Executive Officer and staff, excluding the powers which only the Council can exercise, such as setting the rates.

8.2 If the Committee or other body which has been delegated powers decides that, because of the nature of the decision, that it should be made by Council then there is nothing stopping the Committee or other body referring the decision to Council.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 No engagement with iwi has been undertaken, the proposed amendments are of an operational nature.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 The delegations contained in the register are to the Committees of Council and made for administrative efficiency. The overall assessment of the significance of this decision is considered to be low.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The Delegations Register will be published to the Council website for information and staff will be advised.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There is no change to the risk level from the previous Delegations Register.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 There are no climate change considerations arising from the amendments to the delegations.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The Delegations Register includes the Council’s policy in relation to delegations.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 If the Council adopts the Delegations Register the terms of reference will take effect immediately. They will then be published on the Council’s website.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	DRAFT Delegations Register 2025-2028	10
2.⇩	Delegations Register Change Log 2025	105

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.2 Membership of Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council Joint Committees

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Robyn Byrne, Governance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-12-3

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To appoint the membership of Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council joint committees.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Terms of Reference of the joint committees of Tasman District and Nelson City councils have been included in the Delegations Register, to be adopted at this meeting, 11 December 2025.

2.2 Membership was deferred at the first ordinary meeting on 15 November and it is now appropriate to establish the membership of the committees.

2.3 The Mayor has elected to make recommendations for the membership of each committee for councillors to vote on instead of exercising the powers conferred on him under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Membership of Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council Joint Committees RCN25-12-3; and

2. appoints the membership of the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council joint committees as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEES OF NELSON AND TASMAN COUNCILS

Joint Committee of Nelson and Tasman Council (Joint Committee)

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

All other Councillors

Joint Shareholders Committee

(JSC)

Mayor

Deputy Mayor

Councillor Jo Ellis

Councillor Kit Maling

Councillor Mike Kininmonth

Councillor Paul Morgan

Joint Regional Transport Committee

(JRTC)

Mayor (ex-officio)

Deputy Mayor Maru

Councillor Jo Ellis

Alternates

Councillor Celia Butler

Councillor John Gully

1 x Waka Kōtahi representative – Emma Speight (with voting rights)

Joint Regional Sewerage Committee (JRSC)

Mayor (ex-officio)

Councillor Kit Maling (Chairperson)

Councillor Dave Woods

Joint Regional Landfill Committee (JRLC)

Mayor (ex-officio)

Councillor Dean McNamara

Councillor Trindi Walker

Joint Saxton Field Committee

(JSFC)

Councillor Mike Kininmonth

Councillor Kit Maling

Councillor Timo Neubauer

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group

Please note s.12 (2) of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 states that a Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group is not deemed to be discharged following a triennial election. This Committee is included for completeness.

Mayor (Chairperson – alternates each triennium)

Deputy Mayor (alternate)

Joint Building Authority Advisory Group

(JBAAG)

Terms of Reference to be confirmed

Deputy Mayor Brent Maru

Councillor Jo Ellis

Joint Climate Change Advisory Group

(JCCAG)

Terms of Reference to be confirmed

Councillor Kerryn Ferneyhough (Chairperson)

Councillor Timo Neubauer

Councillor John Gully

Waimea Inlet Coordination Group

Councillor Mike Kininmonth

Alternate

Councillor Timo Neubauer

4. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

4.1 The suggested elected member appointments have no financial or budgetary implications other than already budgeted for.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The Council may vote to make these appointments as per the Mayor’s recommendations or may vote on any other nominations that are made by a councillor at the meeting.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 The Mayor has chosen not to utilise his powers under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002. Clause 31 (1) & (2), Schedule 7, provides for the appointment of membership of committees and subcommittees.

7. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

7.1 Iwi have not been consulted in the preparation of this report. A further report regarding iwi representation will be brought to a future meeting.

8. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

8.1 The appointment of these positions is of low significance. No public consultation is required. It is a decision solely for the Council.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

9. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

9.1 Not applicable.

10. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

10.1 The risks associated with committee appointments are minimal.

11. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

11.1 Little or no impact.

12. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

12.1 Not applicable.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 The Council is asked to make these appointments, either based on the Mayor’s recommendations, or through majority voting for other nominations made on the day.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 Once the appointments are made, they will be publicly notified and staff will complete the administration required to populate the membership of the joint committees and the Council’s website will be updated accordingly.

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.4 Golden Bay Ward reserves - proposed process to classify existing reserves and review the RMP

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Anna Gerraty, Senior Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	John Ridd, Group Manager - Customer & Community; Susan McLean, Group Manager - Strategy & Finance
Report Number:	RCN25-12-5

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1 inform the Council of the legal requirement to classify existing reserves within the Golden Bay Ward before reviewing the Reserve Management Plan (RMP) for that Ward;

1.1.2 seek agreement to initiate a process to classify those existing reserves within the Ward that have not yet been formally classified in accordance with Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act);

1.1.3 seek endorsement of the proposed process to review the Golden Bay Ward RMP; and

1.1.4 seek agreement to publicly notify an invitation for suggestions/ideas for inclusion in a Draft Golden Bay Ward RMP.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 This report covers two work streams relating to management of reserves within Golden Bay Ward:

(a) classification of existing reserves under the Reserves Act 1977; and

(b) the proposed process for reviewing the RMPs for Golden Bay Ward and Tata Beach.

2.2 The existing reserve management plan for Golden Bay Ward, adopted in 2003, covers many of the reserves located within the Ward. A separate Tata Beach RMP was adopted in 2007, covering several reserves in the vicinity of Tata Beach. Neither plan has been reviewed.

2.3 The Council is the administering body for these reserves and therefore responsible for classifying them and preparing a management plan for the reserves.

2.4 Classification of many of the existing reserves (i.e. those that are already subject to the Act) located in Golden Bay Ward remains an outstanding issue that needs to be addressed. Most reserves have never been formally classified under the Act. Classification needs to be undertaken before the Council publicly notifies a Draft Golden Bay Ward RMP, to achieve compliance with section 41(3) of the Act.

2.5 The Council has delegated responsibility from the Minister of Conservation to classify reserves under the Act. Staff recommend that the Council resolves to initiate a process to classify existing reserves in this Ward, under the Act.

2.6 Attachment 1 outlines the proposed timeline for both Ward reserves projects, with a recommended project completion date of August 2026 for reserve classification. This would allow public notice of final reserve classification to be included within the New Zealand Gazette before public notification of a draft RMP.

2.7 The second work stream is to prepare a single reserve management plan for all Council-administered reserves located within the Golden Bay Ward.

2.8 Key milestones in the proposed RMP review process include:

2.8.1 11 December 2025: The Council resolves to seek written suggestions for inclusion in the draft RMP.

2.8.2 23 January to 30 March 2026: Seeking ideas’ initial community engagement round.

2.8.3 April to June 2026: Development of an initial draft Golden Bay Ward RMP.

2.8.4 June to July 2026: Iwi and Golden Bay Community Board provide feedback on initial draft RMP.

2.8.5 September 2026: Strategy Finance and Performance Committee considers and approves the draft RMP for public release.

2.8.6 Mid-September to mid-November 2026: Draft RMP open for submissions for two months.

2.8.7 December 2026: Hearing Panel holds hearing and deliberates on all submissions received.

2.8.8 January 2027: Staff amend RMP as per Hearing Panel instructions and prepare decision report.

2.8.9 February 2027: Final RMP considered and adopted by the Council.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Golden Bay Ward reserves - proposed process to classify existing reserves and review the RMP RCN25-12-5; and

2. agrees to exercise the delegation from the Minister of Conservation to begin the process of classifying existing reserve areas within Golden Bay Ward, in accordance with Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

3. agrees that, in terms of Section 41(5A) of the Reserves Act 1977, written suggestions for inclusion in the Draft Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan would materially assist in its preparation; and

4. agrees to publicly notify, pursuant to Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977, an invitation for suggestions/ideas for inclusion in a Draft Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan; and

5. agrees that the areas of land to be covered by the Reserve Management Plan includes all parks and reserve land owned or administered by the Council within the Golden Bay Ward:

5.1 including all reserves in the vicinity of Tata Beach, recreation reserves and some local purpose reserves (walkways, esplanade reserves, community facilities, car parks etc); and

5.2 excluding Local Purpose (Road) Reserves and Local Purpose (Utility) Reserves or other such land that has been reserved solely for provision of water, wastewater or stormwater services; and

6. agrees that staff prepare background information on Golden Bay Ward reserves for display on the Council’s website and officers to assist the public consultation processes associated with reserve classification and the Reserve Management Plan review; and

7. agrees that staff publish an article in the 23 January 2026 edition of Newsline, inviting suggestions/ideas for inclusion in a Draft Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan, stating that suggestions may be made up until 30 March 2026; and

8. agrees that staff confirm that the appointment/vesting of each of the reserves to be covered by the Golden Bay Reserve Management Plan is held with the Council and to report back to the Council prior to public notification of a Draft Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan; and

9. agrees that staff engage with Manawhenua ki Mohua, Te Tauihu iwi and the Golden Bay Community Board, and consult with reserve/hall management committees within Golden Bay Ward, along with a wide cross section of the community, during the reserve classification and management plan review processes.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Over 25 years ago, the Council moved to a system of grouping reserves into Wards and preparing management plans that covered most reserves within each Ward. The Moturoa/Rabbit Island RMP, Tata Beach RMP and Abel Tasman Foreshore RMP are exceptions to this – all other reserves that the Council administers within Tasman District are covered by Ward RMPs.

4.2 In 2013, the Council adopted the ‘Reserves General Policies’ document, which covers all reserves in the District.This high-level policy guidance does not need to be repeated in Ward Reserve Management Plans. However, RMPs should outline any exceptions to the general policies and provide more specific details to guide management of individual reserves.

4.3 The existing Golden Bay Ward RMP (2003) and Tata Beach RMP (2007) covers many, but not all, parcels of land that have been reserved for recreation, scenic or local purposes. The Council is the administering body for these reserves and therefore responsible for classifying the reserves and preparing and reviewing a management plan for the reserves.

4.4 A recent inventory revealed that 219 parcels of land, managed as 117 separate reserves, are administered by the Council within the Golden Bay Ward. Reserve areas not currently included within the existing Golden Bay Ward RMP include some Tata Beach reserves, some local purpose reserves and several new reserves that have been vested in the Council since the RMP was adopted.

4.5 Classification of existing reserves needs to be completed before preparing a reserve management plan, to comply with section 41(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 which states: “The management plan shall provide for and ensure the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, and, to the extent that the administering body's resources permit, the development, as appropriate, of the reserve for the purposes for which it is classified, and shall incorporate and ensure compliance with the principles set out in section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21, section 22, or section 23, as the case may be, for a reserve of that classification.” [emphasis added]

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

RESERVE CLASSIFICATION PROJECT

Classification of existing reserves under the Reserves Act 1977

5.1 Classification of reserves under the Act identifies the primary purpose of a reserve and helps direct its management, usage and development. Classifying land as reserve provides an additional layer of legislative protection under the Act. Classification binds the Council and limits (to a greater or lesser extent) how the land can be used. This increases the protection that the land has and provides the community with certainty as to the types of activities that can take place on the land.

5.2 The Act outlines a process and methodology for the declaration, classification and reclassification of land as a reserve:

· Section 14 provides the Council with the statutory authority to pass a resolution to declare any land owned by the Council as a reserve subject to undertaking the necessary public notification procedures under section 119 of the Act.

· Classification is a mandatory process under section 16 of the Act which involves assigning a reserve (or parts of a reserve) to the appropriate class (and, if required, the type and overlay) within the framework shown in the diagram below. The “class” determines the principle or primary purpose of the reserve. The determination of an appropriate classification category for a reserve should follow a robust methodology and criteria and is a matter the community should have adequate input into.

· Section 24 outlines the process to reclassify reserves. Reclassification may be needed to:

(i) change the primary purpose to highlight one set of features over another; or

(ii) allow new activities to occur that cannot occur under the current classification.

Framework for Classification

5.3 The four-tier framework of reserve classification under the Reserves Act is shown in the diagram below.

5.4 Overlays are unlikely to be required for reserves located within Golden Bay Ward (Nature and Scientific reserves tend to be administered by the Department of Conservation, not councils). However, some reserves are likely to require a ‘Type’ – eg Class: Local Purpose, Type: Hall.

Delegated authority to classify reserves

5.5 On 12 June 2013, the Minister of Conservation signed off an Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities pursuant to section 10 of the Reserves Act 1977. The delegation provides the Council with the authority to classify or reclassify reserves under sections 14, 16 and 24, provided the title of the reserve was not derived from the Crown. Before 2013, the Minister was responsible for classifying reserves.

Classifying reserves in Golden Bay Ward

5.6 To date, we have identified 219 parcels of land within Golden Bay Ward that the Council administers as reserves. These land parcels represent 117 reserves (some reserves comprise of two or more land parcels). Of these, we expect very few will have been classified under the Reserves Act 1977, meaning that the Council will need to undertake the process to classify these existing reserves. We will send the Department of Conservation our list of reserves and ask them to check their records to confirm that this is the case.

5.7 Until the time that the reserves are classified, section 16(6) of the Act applies. Section 16(6) states: “Subject to subsection (7), every existing reserve shall be held and administered for the purpose of its existing reservation, and the administering body shall continue to control and manage the reserve under the appropriate provisions of this Act pending its classification under subsection (1)”.

5.8 Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 sets out the process for classifying reserves. The final step in the process is publication of a notice in the New Zealand Gazette, which describes the classification of each reserve (refer sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Act).

5.9 As reserve classification is mandatory, the Council needs to undertake a process to classify all existing reserves within Golden Bay Ward that have not previously been classified.

5.10 Public notice of the intention to classify is required under s16 of the Act, unless the classification meets the test outlined in s16(5), i.e. “(a) the classification proposed for any reserve is substantially the same as the purpose for which the reserve was held and administered immediately before the commencement of this Act”.

5.11 Staff recommend that the Council initiates a public consultation process to classify existing reserves in the Golden Bay Ward that have not yet been classified, as per s16 of the Act, and completes this process before agreeing to publicly notify a Draft Golden Bay Ward RMP.

Methodology to select reserve classification

5.12 A thorough methodology should be followed to determine the appropriate classification categories for each reserve.

5.13 Over the next few months, staff will undertake background research on each reserve to be classified. Staff will obtain the acquisition history of each land parcel and visit the sites to assess the primary and secondary values, purpose, current and potential use, and contribution to the wider open space context.

5.14 This information will be assessed against the criteria in the Reserves Act 1977 and the Department of Conservation’s Reserves Act Guide, to determine the most appropriate classification category. The assessment will also consider whether any of the current and potential uses or activities should be restricted in future.

5.15 Note that some sites have a range of functions and values worthy of recognition and protection, meaning more than one classification could be appropriate. The recommended classification should reflect the primary purpose of the land as well as enabling appropriate activities to take place. Secondary values can be protected by provisions in the reserve management plan.

Consultation on reserve classification proposals

5.16 A summary of information will be attached to a report to the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee, setting out the proposed classification of each existing reserve to be classified. We aim to complete this report by April 2026 (see timeline in Attachment 1). This report will also request that the Committee publicly notifies the proposed reserve classifications and calls for submissions.

Properties not formally protected as reserves under the Act

5.17 Several park/‘reserve’ areas that the Council administers in the Golden Bay Ward are not held or protected as reserves under the Act. Most of these were purchased (or gifted to the Council) with fee simple title and have never been formally declared to be a reserve under the Act.

5.18 While these areas form key parts of our open space network in Golden Bay Ward, we recommend retaining them as is (i.e. not declaring them as reserves under the Act) at this point in time. The reason for this is that Wakatū Incorporated has asked the Council to defer any processes that may result in changes to land status (e.g. declaring land as reserve) until the High Court has made its determination regarding the Nelson Tenths Reserves. Further details about this case are provided in paragraphs 5.20 to 5.26 below.

5.19 Staff recommend including all areas of fee simple land that the Council manages as parks/open spaces within the Draft Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan. Provided it is clearly stated that these parcels are not reserves under the Act, we can still provide useful management direction for these areas, under the umbrella of the Plan. This approach has been taken for all other Ward RMPs.

Nelson Tenths Reserves case

5.20 On 28 February 2017, the Supreme Court released its decision in Proprietors of Wakatū & Rore Stafford v Attorney- General [2017] NZSC 17, allowing the appeal, and sending the case back to the High Court to determine matters of breach, loss and remedy.

5.21 The case relates to the creation of the Nelson Tenths Reserves, in the early days of colonial New Zealand. It seeks to secure the return of land from the Crown to make up the full ‘tenth’ that was guaranteed to Māori, but which the Crown never reserved in full.

5.22 This is not a Treaty claim. It is a private law claim centred on the establishment of Nelson/Tasman by the New Zealand Company in 1839-1845. It is about the rights of Māori customary landowners to hold the Crown to account in circumstances where the Crown agreed to act on their behalf in fulfilling the terms of the Spain award. Under the Spain award, land amounting to one-tenth of the recommended grant to the Company was to be reserved for the benefit of the original Māori owners. Only 5,100 acres of the 15,100 acres of tenth reserves were identified and reserved at the time of the award.

5.23 The Supreme Court did not finally decide the case, on the basis that the High Court still needs to make findings on the extent to which the Crown has acted in breach of its fiduciary duties, and on what remedies should be granted for those breaches. The case has been referred back to the High Court to decide these further points.

5.24 The Supreme Court’s decision is significant because it is the first time a New Zealand court has found that the Crown owes fiduciary duties to Māori landowners to protect their property rights. Accordingly, the Crown has a legal obligation to protect those rights and fulfil the terms of the Trust relating to the Tenths Reserves and Occupation Lands.

5.25 In 2023, a significant phase of the case occurred. The 10-week trial held in Wellington’s High Court focused on the Crown’s liability and the valuation of losses experienced by Māori landowners. The plaintiffs estimate that restitution could amount to over $2 billion, reflecting both the land lost and the harm caused by the Crown's failure to uphold its fiduciary duties. Further legal deliberations have been ongoing regarding the extent of the breaches by the Crown.

5.26 The Government lodged an appeal on the High Court ruling made in October 2024, meaning the case remains unresolved as at December 2025.

RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT

Proposed process for reviewing the reserve management plan

5.27 This part of the report outlines the proposed process to review the Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan. Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 sets out the legal requirements for this management planning process.

5.28 The attached project plan overview outlines the key steps in the process, with an anticipated completion date of February 2027.

5.29 The first steps that the administering body for the reserves (i.e. the Council) must undertake are:

(i) make a decision to begin the plan review process;

(ii) determine the areas of land to be covered by the RMP;

(iii) determine which areas are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977;

(iv) confirm that the appointment or vesting is held;

(v) determine whether or not there are any unclassified reserves to be covered by the RMP;

(vi) resolve (in terms of s.41(5A)) whether or not written suggestions on the proposed RMP would materially assist in its preparation; and

(vii) decide who to consult.

Each of these steps is discussed in more detail below.

5.30 Once these decisions have been made, staff will prepare information for public release and invite suggestions on the proposed RMP.

5.31 Staff recommend that adequate time (two months) is provided for the first stage of the process and that a range of community engagement tools are employed, to encourage participation from a wide cross-section of the community.

5.32 The Act requires that the draft RMP is made publicly available for comment (i.e. open for formal written submissions) for a period of at least two months and that hearings be held for those who wish to speak to their submission. This formal stage of the public consultation process is planned to start in September 2026 (see Attachment 1).

5.33 The Council also must appoint a Hearing Panel to hear submissions on the Draft RMP. This step of the process can take place after the Council approves the release of the Draft RMP for public comment (scheduled for September 2026).

5.34 As there is likely to be a moderate level of interest in the proposed RMP, this report includes detailed information on each of the steps that the Council needs to consider for developing this plan.

Steps in Plan review process

Step 1: Make a decision to begin the RMP review process

5.35 The existing Golden Bay Ward RMP was adopted in 2003 and Tata Beach RMP was adopted in 2007. Neither have been through a complete plan review process. Reserve management plans should be ‘living documents’ that are continually reviewed in response to issues that arise. As both plans are well overdue for review; it is recommended that this process begins now.

Step 2: Determine the areas of land to be covered by the RMP

5.36 Staff recommend that the areas of land to be covered by the RMP should include all parks and reserves within the Golden Bay Ward, including Tata Beach reserves, but excluding Local Purpose (Road or Utility) Reserves or similar.

Step 3: Determine which areas are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977

5.37 Staff have identified 219 parcels of land within the Golden Bay Ward that are owned and/or administered by the Council that should be included within the RMP. Staff are still working through the process of determining which are already subject to the Reserves Act (existing reserves) and those areas that are fee simple land owned by the Council.

Step 4: Confirm that the appointment or vesting is held

5.38 Staff still have more work to complete before we can confirm this for each of the parcels of land within Golden Bay Ward.

Step 5: Determine whether or not there are any unclassified reserves to be covered by the RMP

5.39 As outlined in the subsection on reserve classification above, many of the existing reserves within Golden Bay Ward have never been formally classified under the Reserves Act 1977. Classification must be undertaken via resolution of Council and publication of a notice in the New Zealand Gazette before a Draft RMP is publicly notified.

Step 6: Resolve, in terms of s41(5A), whether or not written suggestions on the proposed RMP would materially assist in its preparation

5.40 Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 states:

“(5) Before preparing a management plan for any 1 or more reserves under its control, the administering body shall — (a) give public notice of its intention to do so; and (b) in that notice, invite persons and organisations interested to send to the administering body at its office written suggestions on the proposed plan within a time specified in the notice; and (c) in preparing that management plan, give full consideration to any such comments received.

(5A) Nothing in subsection (5) shall apply in any case where the administering body has, by resolution, determined that written suggestions on the proposed plan would not materially assist in its preparation.”

5.41 Staff recommend that the Council seeks written suggestions on the Draft RMP, and that a two-month period is made available for this stage of the process. This will enable us to engage with Manawhenua ki Mohua, Te Tauihu iwi, the Golden Bay Community Board, and reserve/hall management committees, along with a wide cross-section of the Golden Bay community, to seek ideas and other feedback, and develop a Draft RMP in a collaborative way.

5.42 Once the Council approves the release of a Draft RMP, the next stage is to invite written submissions and hold hearings.

Step 7: Decide who to consult with

5.43 Staff recommend that consultation with Manawhenua ki Mohua and Te Tauihu iwi is undertaken separately to community engagement, given the Council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act, Reserves Act and Treaty settlements. Guidance on involvement of iwi in reserve management planning is included in the ‘Guide for Reserve Administering Bodies’ (available on the DOC website). Each of the eight Te Tauihu iwi have a significant interest in the Golden Bay Ward.

5.44 Staff also recommend consulting with a wide range of organisations and people from the local community, including reserve/hall management committees. Community engagement should aim to be as inclusive as possible.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The budget for both projects has been provided for in the Council’s Long Term Plan.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1(a)	Initiate a full public consultation process to classify existing reserves in Golden Bay Ward in accordance with Section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977.	All interested parties can have input to this process.	No obvious disadvantage.
1(b)	Defer the task of declaring land as reserve (and assigning it a classification) under the Reserves Act until the Nelson Tenths Reserve claim has been resolved.	This option aligns with the process the Council has used for all other Ward reserves projects. If this same approach is taken to the Golden Bay Ward reserves project, then all land to be declared as reserves within Tasman District could be dealt with at one time. A public consultation process would be required.	Some people may wish to see land areas given a higher level of legal protection as soon as possible, rather than delaying this task.
1(c)	Initiate both reserve projects concurrently; and agree to follow the proposed process for undertaking the RMP review (subject to any further changes that the Council may have), noting that the reserve classification process needs to be completed before a Draft RMP is publicly notified.	The public will have three opportunities to provide feedback: firstly by providing ideas and suggestions for inclusion in the draft RMP and during the two formal consultation rounds (one for reserve classification and the other for the RMP).	Length of time to review RMP is extended by two months, to include initial ‘seeking ideas’ round.
2	Defer the classification of existing reserves in Golden Bay Ward.	This would free up staff time for other projects.	The legality of the RMP could be challenged, as reserves must be managed in accordance with their purpose (i.e. classification).
3	Defer the RMP review.	This would free up staff time for other projects.	The existing RMPs are 20 years old. They do not cover many of the park and reserve areas within the Golden Bay Ward, meaning no specific management guidance is in place for these. Guidance provided for other parks and reserves is outdated. If the RMP review is deferred, the public will not have a say in how the Ward reserves are to be managed in future.
4	Choose not to seek suggestions from the public prior to drafting the RMP.	This could speed up the RMP review process.	Staff will have no understanding of public opinion on how parks and reserves in the Ward should be managed. If feedback was limited to comments on a draft RMP only, substantial rework of the document be needed, potentially requiring a further round of consultation to give others the opportunity to comment.

7.2 Option 1(a)-(c) is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The reserve classification and plan review processes will be undertaken in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, as outlined in section 5 of this report.

8.2 Once finalised and adopted by the Council, the Golden Bay Ward RMP document will replace the current RMP. Tata Beach reserves will be included within the new RMP.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Staff recommend that consultation with Manawhenua ki Mohua and Te Tauihu iwi is undertaken separately to community engagement, given the Council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act, Reserves Act and Treaty settlements. Guidance on involvement of iwi in reserve management planning is included in the ‘Guide for Reserve Administering Bodies’ (available on the DOC website). Each of the eight Te Tauihu iwi have a significant interest in Golden Bay Ward reserves.

9.2 Earlier this year staff provided information to iwi on both projects and asked iwi Taiao staff members about how they wished to be involved.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 As outlined in the following table, staff consider that these two projects will be of low to medium significance to residents of Golden Bay Ward/Tasman District, but of high significance to some iwi/Māori.

10.2 Formal public consultation is required under the Reserves Act 1977.

10.3 Given the level of interest in this area, staff consider it appropriate that a two-stage engagement process is undertaken for development of the Golden Bay Ward RMP, as outlined in Section 5 of this report.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	The proposals to classify reserves and review the RMP will be of interest to iwi, nearby residents, community groups and other parties/organisations. Golden Bay Ward residents are likely to be more interested than those in other parts of the District. Some iwi/Māori are likely to have a high level of interest in these projects.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Encouraging participation in a two-step engagement process for RMP development contributes to community wellbeing.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	This report encourages the Council to publicly notify its intention to seek suggestions and ideas for inclusion in a Draft Golden Bay Ward RMP. No land status will change as a result of this report.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	N/A
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	N/A
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	N/A

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Public notification of the opportunity to provide feedback and ideas for inclusion in the draft RMP will be included in the 23 January 2026 edition of Newsline. Proposals to classify reserves will also be publicly notified later in 2026.

11.2 Staff will create a Shape Tasman webpage for consultation purposes and encourage participation via the Council’s social media channels. Hard copies of consultation material will be available for viewing at the Council’s Golden Bay office and library.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The risks associated with approving the proposed process for classifying the existing reserves and reviewing the RMP are minimal, given that there will be the opportunity for public feedback to be incorporated into reserve classification and the development of the Draft RMP.

12.2 There is a slight risk with delaying the task of declaring land as a reserve (and assigning it a classification) under the Reserves Act. Some people may want the Council to declare areas of fee simple land that we currently manage as a park/recreation ground/open space area as reserve as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the Nelson Tenths Reserve case to be resolved by the High Court. However, there would be a reputational risk for the Council with iwi if it was to declare these areas reserve before the case is resolved. These areas of land will be included within the RMP and managed in accordance with the objectives and policies included in the final RMP – i.e. continue to be treated as if they were reserves.

12.3 The risks associated with approving the proposed process for reviewing the RMP is minimal, given that there will be the opportunity for public feedback to be incorporated into the draft RMP.

12.4 The public will have two opportunities to participate in RMP development: firstly, by suggesting ideas for inclusion and secondly, by making submissions on the draft RMP (and speaking to their submission at a hearing, if they wish) once publicly notified.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The matter requiring a decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The proposal will have no significant implications for greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime and therefore does not require an approach to reduce them.

13.3 Climate change impacts will not have any direct effect upon the proposal over its lifetime.

13.4 The proposal neither contributes to, nor detracts from, the Council’s and central government policies and commitments relating to climate change.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The Council has delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation under the Reserves Act 1977 to classify reserves (other than those derived from the Crown) and to prepare, review and adopt reserve management plans (see paragraph 5.5 above for further details).

14.2 Under the Community Board terms of reference, the Golden Bay Community Board has the power to make recommendations on the following matters in relation to local parks and reserves in its ward:

a) proposed developments on reserves;

b) proposals to declare lands as reserves or to classify reserves; and

c) draft content for inclusion in the draft reserve management plans.

14.3 The power is recommendatory only and final decisions will sit with the Council for proposed developments and setting aside new reserves or classifying reserves, or the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee for including content in draft reserve management plans.

14.4 The Council may also request that the Board facilitate engagement of their community in relation to policies, plans and projects proposed for their community.

14.5 In relation to these two Ward reserves projects, the Golden Bay Community Board should be provided with an initial draft list of proposed reserve classifications for their consideration before the Council receives a report on whether to publicly notify proposals to classify reserves in the ward. Similarly, the Board should receive an initial draft RMP for their consideration before the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee receives a report on whether to publicly notify a draft Golden Bay Ward RMP, so that any Board recommendations can be incorporated into that report to the Committee. Staff will liaise with the Golden Bay Community Board throughout the reserve classification and management plan review processes.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Golden Bay Ward RMP is well overdue for a full review. The proposed process and timeline anticipates adoption of a final RMP by February 2027.

15.2 All reserves to be covered by the RMP must first be classified under the Reserves Act 1977 (this is a mandatory requirement). Staff propose to run the two processes concurrently initially, but to complete the reserve classification prior to public notification of a Draft Golden Bay Ward RMP, to ensure compliance with the Act.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Reserve classification project – next steps

16.1 If Council approval to initiate the reserve classification project is granted, staff will aim to complete this project by August 2026, prior to public notification of a Draft RMP.

16.2 Staff will collate all relevant information on existing reserves to be classified and finalise a methodology for determining the most relevant reserve classification and type. This information will be made available to iwi, reserve/hall management committees and the Golden Bay Community Board, who staff will consult with before the public notification stage of the reserve classification process.

16.3 In April 2026, the Council will consider a staff report requesting that the Council give public notice of the intention to classify each of the existing reserves in the Ward. This report will include an attachment outlining the proposed classification for each reserve and rationale. Any recommendations received from the Golden Bay Community Board will be included within this report, for the Council’s consideration.

16.4 The public will then have the opportunity to submit on the proposed reserve classifications. Submissions will be open for at least one month and a hearing held, if required.

16.5 In August 2026, the Council will consider a staff report requesting the Council, under delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, resolves to classify the reserves in accordance with the outcome of the public consultation process.

16.6 The final step in the process, once the Council has resolved to classify the reserves, is for a notice to be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan review project – next steps

16.7 If the Council’s approval to seek ideas for inclusion in the draft RMP is granted, community engagement will commence from January 2026. The formal consultation (submissions) period, which will take place once the draft RMP is publicly notified, is likely to run from mid-September to mid-November 2026.

16.8 Any recommendations received from the Golden Bay Community Board on draft RMP content will be included within a staff report to the Strategy Finance and Performance Committee requesting public notification of the draft RMP, for the Committee’s consideration.

16.9 It is anticipated that the hearing of submissions and deliberations on the draft RMP would occur in December 2026. The Golden Bay Ward RMP document would then be finalised for approval by the Council at their February 2027 meeting.

Project timelines

16.10 A combined timeline for both projects is presented in Attachment 1 to this report. Please note that these dates may be subject to change, as both projects will need to fit in around the Long Term Plan 2027-2037 project (much of the LTP preparation work will take place during 2026).

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Combined timeline for Golden Bay Ward reserves projects

134

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.5 Quarterly Treasury Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	James Bagnall, Financial Analyst
Report Authorisers:	Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Strategy & Planning Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-12-6

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This report provides an update on the Council's Treasury operations, reporting on compliance with the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy, along with a finance market update.

1.2 As at 30 November 2025, the Council's total debt was $407.9 million, and its Net Debt stood at $282.0 million against a policy limit of $315.5 million (160% of forecast annual revenue). Net Debt is above average due to timing: just before the quarterly rates influx in mid-November.

1.3 The Council is compliant with all limits in the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy: §4.2 Borrowing Capacity; §6.2.2 Liquidity Funding/Risk Position; and §6.3 Counterparty Risk.

1.4 The interest rate differential between the amount the Council has pre-funded from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) and the amount re-invested in bank term deposits is – for the first time in a long time – a negative differential, i.e. there is now an interest cost associated with being able to choose when to re-finance. Pre-funding remains a valuable treasury tool but is being undertaken at a lower level than the previous 100%-of-next-year’s-loans refinancing, given this short-term penalty for a long-term advantage.

1.5 The Council’s cost of borrowing (loan interest, swaps interest differential, facility fees) is 3.619% on Total Debt, compared to a budget of 4.23% (set in Mar-25). This helps compensate for some unbudgeted Treasury costs arising from the current review and procurement of transactional banking services.

1.6 Four consecutive quarters of <3% inflation (i.e. within target) explains the RBNZ forecasting modest short-term OCR decreases. However, since the last forecast, y/y inflation has risen above 3%, retrospectively justifying financial markets offering wholesale interest rates that rise in the mid- to long-term. Despite this, the RBNZ just lowered the OCR to 2.25% and published a lower forecast OCR track. Financial markets didn't believe them, and wholesale interest rates climbed higher. The situation is somewhat volatile, especially given the geo-political environment. The Council has to pay market rates, making current long-term borrowing and hedging less attractive.

1.7 NZ ETS carbon credits prices in the secondary market (the ones people actually trade) have been dropping rapidly since 4 November 2025 when the government announced plans to unlink carbon credit volumes from NZ's commitments under the UN's Paris Agreement. If volumes are not restricted, they will lose scarcity and become worthless.

1.8 The Council has pre-funded $20 million of April 2026's $36 million maturing borrowings. Pre-funding improves the Council’s liquidity position and is seen as positive from a credit-rating perspective as it helps reduce refinancing risk. However, the extra cost is currently only offset by term deposit returns when borrowing terms are two years or less, so no more pre-funding is planned.

1.9 Crown Irrigation Investments Limited (CIIL) interest-free facilities total $25.5 million following repayment of the first $2.5 million tranche of the Waimea Community Dam Environmental Loan. They were provided to assist with funding and cost over-runs for the Waimea Community Dam. Additional advances for this project were all sourced from the LGFA.

1.10 The Crown Regional Holdings Limited (CRHL) loan agreement (the Kānoa Loan) to support the Port Tarakohe facilities upgrade provided $6 million at 0% interest for five years; due for re-financing in June 2034.

These 0% interest borrowings reduce the average cost of borrowing. A substantial portion ($18 million) of the concessional loans flows through to Waimea Water Limited (WWL) and reduces their water charges to both Waimea Irrigators Limited and the Council.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Quarterly Treasury Report RCN25-12-6.

3. Treasury Activity

3.1 At 31 August 2025, the Council's total debt was $376.4 million. The key activities since the last report were:

October 2025:

3.1.1 Final $1.5 million of the Kānoa Loan drawn for the Port Tarakohe facilities upgrade.

3.1.2 $10 million new borrowing to help fund 2025 winter Capital expenditure.

3.1.3 $10 million additional pre-funding borrowing to help re-finance April 2026 maturities.

3.1.4 $10 million short-term funding borrowed for two months to provide cash flow to cover the lag between paying for weather event remediation and receiving funding from NZTA/insurance.

3.1.5 $16.2 million pass-through borrowing for WWL (irrigator capacity) re-financed.

November 2025:

3.1.6 Re-issued $5 million of commercial paper, part of the Council's rolling $15 million.

3.1.7 Advanced $0.34 million to WWL to help irrigators with increasing interest costs.

4. Treasury November 2025

Borrowing

4.1 The Council is compliant with all covenants in the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §4.2, and the dynamic Net Debt cap in the LTP 2024-34 Financial Strategy.

§4.2: Borrowing	Nov 2025	Within Limits	Possible Limit
Net external debt ≤20% of equity*	10.5%	✔	$535m	Net Debt
Net external debt ≤160% of total operating revenue*	156.9%	✔	$288m	Net Debt
Net interest* ≤15% of total revenue*	6.4%	✔	$27m	Net Interest
Net interest* ≤25% of total rates*	10.3%	✔	$28m	Net Interest
Liquidity ≥110% of total external debt	118.9%	✔	$427m	External Debt
LTP Financial Strategy	Nov 2025	Within Limits	Possible Limit
Net external debt ≤160% of annual operating revenue**	143.0%	✔	$315m	Net Debt
* Latest audited results: Annual Report 2025, published 30-Oct-25 ** Forecast

4.2 The actual result closest to the limit sets the indicative maximum borrowing amount. The Net Debt vs Operating Revenue limit in the Treasury Policy would be breached if Net Debt rose >$288 million. This is an unintended consequence of the policy's stipulation that ratios need to be calculated on the latest audited results. The intention was to replicate the LTP Financial Strategy limit (i.e. 160% of forecast operating revenue = $315m possible limit); this will be corrected in the next review of the Treasury Policy.

4.3 The interest-to-revenue and interest-to-rates limits are sensitive to movements in borrowing costs. The current high limit on potential borrowings is due to the historically low interest rates (perpetuated using interest rate swaps).

4.4 LGFA financial covenants continue to be the same or less conservative than the Council's 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy limits.

Debt Levels

$407.9m	Total Debt	All borrowing
$305.2m	Gross Debt	Total Debt, minus pre-funded and pass-through loans
$282.0m	Net Debt	Gross Debt, minus all other deposits

Cost of Borrowing and Cost of Funds

3.221%	Cost of Loans	Interest, as % of Total Debt
1.234%	Cost of Swaps	Interest differential (w.a. 0.348% of Total Debt)
0.409%	Cost of Facilities	Line fees (w.a. 0.050% of Total Debt)
3.619%	Cost of Borrowing	Total interest and fees, as % of Total Debt

Interest Rate Risk Position

4.5 This shows a snapshot of the current fixed-rate debt – fixed-rate loans and floating-to-fixed swaps – with a maturity greater than 12 months, charting its maturity over time against a corridor of the policy maximum and minimum levels (as a % of forecast Gross Debt). "Fixed- rate" is defined as having an interest rate resetting maturity/expiry date greater than 12 months away.

4.6 The current debt forecast includes fixed-rate loans for pass-through lending to WWL. However, these loans are all short- to medium-term, so drop out of the chart relatively early even though they are forecast to be re-financed for decades. Despite this, the current position is still compliant because of forward-start swaps which take effect in future years.

§6.1.2: Interest Rate Risk	Minimum	Maximum	Fixed*	Within Limits
Current	40%	90%	76%	✔
Until Nov 2026	40%	90%	76%	✔
Until Nov 2027	35%	85%	70%	✔
* Fixed-rate loans and swaps still available at future date ÷ forecast debt at future date

Interest Rate Swaps

4.7 The GM Strategy & Finance has delegated authority to enter into interest rate swaps on behalf of the Council, on the proviso that such transactions are reported back to the Council. The Council’s approval is required before entering into long-dated swaps with a maturity over 12 years.

Liquidity

4.8 The liquidity ratio calculation represents the total committed bank facilities and term debt amounts, together with liquid investments – the Available Financial Accommodation – over the external debt amount (total debt minus pre-funded loans). The liquidity ratio is 118.9% (target: >110%) and represents the debt headroom available within the Council’s facilities, along with cash available over and above its existing external debt.

Funding Maturity Risk Position

4.9 This chart groups loan maturities in 12-month blocks. Also shown are available facilities, deposits linked to pre-funding loans, and pass-through loans. The shaded background shows the maximum and minimum liquidity maturity bands (including facilities) in the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy:

*§6.2.2: Liquidity/Funding Risk**	Minimum	Maximum	Nov 2025	Within Limits
0 – 3 Years	15%	60%	49%	✔
3 – 7 Years	25%	85%	46%	✔
7+ Years	0%	60%	5%	✔
* Including facilities, and net of linked deposits

4.10 Ensuring a spread of maturities reduces the risk of having to find large amounts of capital, or re-finance loans, at a time in the future in which market conditions may be unfavourable.

Counterparty Credit Risk

4.11 The 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §6.3 requires that New Zealand registered banks (as counterparties) must have a minimum S&P (or equivalent) short-term rating of
A-1+ or long-term rating of AA-. All the Council’s counterparty banks are S&P AA- rated.

§6.3: Counterparty Risk – $30m	Deposits*	Swaps**	Nov 2025	Within Limits
ANZ	-	$11.0m	$11.0m	✔
ASB	$23.2m	$2.3m	$15.5m	✔
BNZ	$20.0m	-	$20.0m	✔
Westpac	$0.0m	$8.1m	$8.1m	✔
* 100% of principal ** 3% of notional value × remaining years

Current Borrowings

Counterparty	Fixed*	Floating	Nov 2025
LGFA	$167.1m	$184.3m	$351.4m
LGFA (short-term Commercial Paper)	-	$25.0m	$25.0m
Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd (interest-free loans)	$25.5m	-	$25.5m
Crown Regional Holdings Ltd (low-interest loans)	$6.0m	-	$6.0m
ASB Facility/Overdraft	-	-	-
Westpac Facility	-	-	-
Total	$198.6m	$209.3m	$407.9m
* Having an interest rate resetting maturity/expiry date greater than 12 months.

Local Water Done Well

4.12 Future debt forecasts include the three waters activities remaining with the Council and are based on the draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan projections.

Waimea Water Limited (WWL)

4.13 Future debt forecasts include $82.7 million on-lent through Shareholder Advances from the Council to WWL.

Source	Interest	Principal	Re-finance
WWL Shareholder Advances for the Council
CIIL cost overrun Loan	0%	$9.2m	Dec-25 to Dec-40
LGFA	5.097%	$21.0m	May-28
Total	3.542%	$30.2m
WWL Shareholder Advances for WIL
CIIL Cost overrun	0%	$8.8m	Dec-25 to Dec-40
LGFA	3.600%	$16.2m	Apr-26
LGFA (the Council pays interest until Jun-26)	3.760%	$10.1m	Apr-27
LGFA	3.825%	$0.8m	Jun-27
LGFA	3.345%	$16.2m	May-28
Total	2.956%	$52.2m

5. Investments

5.1 The Council’s cash investments total $43.2 million with an average interest rate of 2.97%. In line with the Treasury Policy, specific reserves are not kept as cash. The Council continues to maintain adequate cash reserves and committed bank facilities to support any drawdown against specified reserves.

5.2 The individual investment balances are as follows:

Counterparty		Nov 2025	Interest
ASB	Call Account	$23,168,245	2.25%
BNZ	Call Account	$99	-
Westpac	Call Account	$2,103	0.05%
ASB	On-call Money-market	$3,374	2.10%
BNZ	Term Deposit (329 Days)	$10,000,000	4.00%
BNZ	Term Deposit (189 Days)	$10,000,000	3.63%
Total		$43,173,821	2.97%

5.3 Since October 2021, ASB has included the Council in the all-of-government arrangement which pays interest on call account balances at the previous day's OCR. This is currently better than the ASB on-call money-market account rate that other customers receive. This account was previously used for daily surplus cash.

6. Emissions Trading Scheme

6.1 The objective of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon credit policy is to minimise the impact of the movements in the carbon credit prices on the Council.

6.2 Recent decisions by the New Zealand government to contradict Climate Change Commission advice and boost auction volumes have resulted in large recent declines in the NZU price and failed auctions, both due to over-supply of carbon credits.

6.3 The government announced impending changes to climate change law on 4 November 2025. These included that NZ ETS credit volumes will be unlinked from NZ's climate targets under the UN's Paris Agreement. The natural market reaction to a scarce commodity becoming unrestricted is to see its value drop rapidly, which it has, dropping from an already low $50.70/tCO₂e to $38.50/tCO₂e in 3 weeks.

6.4 ETS risk is managed under the limits in the 2024 Treasury Risk Management Policy, §6.4.

§6.4: Forward Cover Risk	Minimum	Maximum	Oct 2021	Within Limits
Committed*	80%	100%	100%	✔
Forecast Period
0 – 1 Years	0%	80%	80%	✔
1 – 2 Years	0%	50%	50%	✔
2 – 3 Years	0%	30%	0%	✔
* Exposure becomes committed in Jan-Mar (quarter following emission period as the Council must report emissions from the previous year)

6.5 Consultation has started on proposed amendments to the ETS. There are two sets of proposed amendments to strengthen the ETS framework and to reduce the complexity around the forestry scheme. The Council has no direct exposure to landfills' ETS liabilities as these are managed through the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit.

6.6 The Council has sold, through the Enterprise Activity, $3m of unencumbered ETS credits to partly fund the FY25 operating deficit. An additional $3m of unencumbered credits have been sold to provide the seed funding for the DRF. These transactions leave the Council with few, if any, remaining unencumbered credits.

7. Market Update

7.1 Recent LGFA bonds issues have continued the last two years' success, still receiving three to five times as many bids as bonds on offer, helped by a weaker NZD and increased risk-aversion in the investment market.

7.2 The LGFA Sustainable Asset Pool (GSS and Climate Action Loans to councils and CCOs) is now $3.46 billion so they have plenty of sustainable assets to back both the 2030 and 2032 Sustainable Financing Bonds (SFBs) (which they started issuing in the January 2025 tender to strong retail demand).

7.3 Interest and swap rates currently on offer indicate a market expectation of further decreasing interest rates in the short- to mid-term, followed by a gradual increase in later years. The RBNZ now only has one target: 1-3% y/y inflation. Four consecutive quarters of <3% inflation (as measured by the CPI) explains the RBNZ forecasting modest short-term OCR decreases. However, beyond the RBNZ's short- to medium-term forecasts the market has no guidance, and current global uncertainty is causing higher long-term interest rates. The latest quarter where y/y inflation has risen above 3% is providing extra justification for high long-term forecast rates.

8. Treasury Cost Centre

8.1 The Treasury cost centre operates as the Council’s internal bank. It manages the external costs of borrowing and allocates them across internal loans within individual activities. It also pays/charges interest on reserves and activity balances. In accordance with the Treasury Risk Management Policy, these interest rates are set quarterly. For the quarter starting October 2025, interest is charged at 3.89%* on loans and overdrawn closed account balances and paid at 2.795%** on credit balances.

* Weighted average cost of borrowing at 30 June 2025

** 90-day BKBM rate, set on the last day of the previous quarter

9. LGFA Environmental, Social and Governance Borrowing

9.1 The LGFA is looking to borrowing councils to support its Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting and funding initiatives. Investors are increasingly applying these non-financial factors as part of their analysis to identify material risks and growth opportunities. Councils who can align their new borrowing to these factors get a slightly reduced interest rate from the LGFA. Council staff will be reviewing how we can assist with reporting tracking ESG factors and borrowing over the next 12 months, e.g. rivers and flood protection remediation work after the weather events.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.6 Financial Report Year to Date October 2025

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Paul Egan, Management Accounting Manager
Report Authorisers:	Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Strategy & Planning Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-12-7

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 This financial report provides an update on key financial information for the four months ending 31 October 2025.

1.2 Weather events at the end of June 2025 and continuing into July 2025 have had a negative impact on the overall financial position of Council.

1.3 Summarised facts:

1.3.1 The Council had operating expenditure of $18.9 million related to the weather events, being mainly maintenance in nature. The full cost to the organisation is more, once staff time is included. The expenditure is ongoing and will most likely flow into the 2026/2027 financial year.

1.3.2 $12.0 million of external income related to the weather events has been recognised in these accounts.

1.3.3 Net debt has risen $17.5 million since 30 June 2025, largely driven by weather event related expenditure. While $12.0 million of weather event related income has been recognised at 31 October, $11.0 million of this was not received at that date.

1.3.4 The weather events have displaced both planned maintenance expenditure and capital expenditure, with totals of both lower year to date, but they are expected to increase significantly in the second half of the year.

1.3.5 The balanced budget benchmark is 91.39% at 31 October, under the budget of 94.72%.

1.3.6 No weather event related insurance recoveries have been recognised at 31 October.

1.4 Considering the operational impact of the weather event (a net amount of $6.9 million), the accounting deficit only being $483,000 worse than year to date budget is a good result. The second half of the year will, however, see continuing weather event related expenditure and a catch up of contractually obligated maintenance expenditure displaced. As such, the deficit will increase as the year progresses.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Financial Report Year to Date October 2025 report RCN25-12-7.

3. Balanced Budget Benchmark

3.1 The balanced budget benchmark is part of a suite of benchmarks as defined in the Local Government (Financial Reporting and Prudence) Regulations 2014. These benchmarks are included in the Council’s Annual Reports, Annual Plans and Long-Term Plans.

Chart 1.

A graph of a budget benchmark

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

3.2 As can be seen in the chart above, not all operating expenses are being funded from operating expenditure. The budget allows for some operating expenditure to be funded from other sources – using reserves, or loan funded. The loan funded expenditure is primarily for the Digital Innovation Programme, the Tasman Resource Management Plan and Saxton Field Joint Committee capital expenditure.

3.3 Please note that the official balanced budget benchmark calculation includes some capital subsidies. If adjusted to remove these, it would be lower 89.6% YTD October, and 89.5% Budget.

3.4 Weather event response costs have impacted this benchmark year to date, unless there are cost savings or increased recoveries then the benchmark is unlikely to improve, with the unfunded portion of operating expenditure being financed by debt.

Table 1.

Simplistically, the additional revenue and maintenance on a YTD basis shown above are all driven by the weather event.

4. Financial Performance

4.1 Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense

Note: The Annual Plan is the adopted annual plan. The Annual Budget column is the annual plan budget modified for budget carryovers, transfers and additional expenditure approved. These are approved via appropriate delegation.

4.2 Development and financial contributions

4.2.1 These contributions, mainly for future development, are impacted by the economic conditions being $3.7 million below budget YTD. Though later in the development cycle, new dwelling building consent applications are also below last year’s volumes.

4.3 Operating subsidies and grants

4.3.1 These are higher $13.0 million higher than YTD budget and exceed full year budget. This is driven by increased subsidies receivable from government agencies such as NZTA, MBIE and MfE.

4.4 Capital Subsidies

4.4.1 These are $2.2 million below budget year to date, with weather event related changes to MBIE funded Lower Motueka River work, and programmed roading work being disrupted.

4.5 Fees and charges

4.5.1 These are 38% of annual budget 33.33% of the way through the year – being $2.1 million higher than budgeted.

4.5.2 This is driven by stronger income in solid waste fees at transfer stations etc $475,000, chargeable services including building and resource consenting are running ahead of budget, but are expected to come back in line over the holiday period and some annual charging received early in the year.

4.6 Other Gains

4.6.1 This is the sale of ETS credits ($3.0 million), resolved to occur by Council, after the annual plan budget was approved.

4.7 Finance Expense (net)

4.7.1 This is $1.2 million below budget at 31 October, but is expected to increase to budgeted amounts by year end.

4.8 Employee related expense

4.8.1 This is $371,000 higher than budget in the first four months of the financial year due in part to weather event related additional staffing costs. This is expected to return to budgeted levels over the remainder of the year. Staff numbers are being actively managed re vacancies start date by senior management.

4.8.2 Diversion of staff from capital projects to operating work, due to the weather event, is also contributing to this higher operating expense.

4.9 Maintenance expense

4.9.1 This is an area where there are multiple factors present around expenditure and offsetting subsidy and grant income.

4.9.2 Emergency event related maintenance expenditure to date was $17.0 million. This will be offset in part by subsidies and grants. Some of those subsides and grants have been able to be calculated following agreement with the providers, however, other agreements had not been confirmed at the time of closing out these financials. There will be an unbudgeted local portion of maintenance expenditure, that will be financed via debt in the short-term. These one-off amounts will have to be recovered through higher Council income in future years.

4.9.3 Normal programmed and contracted maintenance work continues, though some of it has been displaced until later in the year, following the demands on resources from the weather event.

4.9.4 Normal (non-weather event related) maintenance work is currently under budget and expected to continue to be under budget. As in previous years, Water Supply and Wastewater continue to be a concern and are tracking to exceed their reactive maintenance budgets.

Table 2

5. Capital Expenditure

5.1 The Long-Term Plan financial budgets assume that the full capital works programme will not be delivered in its entirety each year. This historical under-delivery is factored into the forecast net debt levels and finance costs by the use of a capital lag.

5.2 Changes to the capital lead to re-phasing and re-prioritisation. These changes in capital expenditure are reflected in the transfers shown in the table below, with some items being brought forward and others being rephased to future years.

5.3 With the annual cycle of new project ramp up and the weather event impact, year-to-date expenditure is 17% of the budget 33% of the way through the year. The weather events led to internal and external resources being diverted to response and recovery activities. As resources continue to get released from that work, the capital works in the programme will resume.

5.4 As part of the 2026/2027 annual planning, the capital programme is being reviewed for what is achievable for this year, and the impact on next and subsequent financial years. This reprioritisation should aim to reset capital expenditure expectations for next financial year and avoid large carry overs.

5.5 Budget, spend and forecast by activity is summarised in the table on the next page.

Table 3

Capital expenditure Excluding JV’S (000)’s

6. Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet)

6.1 The Statement of Financial Position

Table 4

7. Net Debt and External Debt

7.1 The Treasury report, also presented at this Council meeting, has more detail and analysis in this area. Note the Treasury report is as at 30 November 2025.

7.2 On 31 October 2025, the Council's total debt was $407.9 million, up from the $376.4 million at 30 June 2025. Net Debt stood at $288.8 million, compared to 30 June 2025 of $271.3 million. The budgeted net debt in the 2025/2026 Annual Plan is $305.0 million.

7.3 The pass-through Loans are Shareholder advances to Waimea Water Limited for funding the Waimea Community Dam. These loans are excluded in calculating the Council’s Net Debt position. They are included in assessing the Council’s borrowing from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) and the LGFA covenants.

7.4 The linked deposits are the Council pre-funding its April 2026 LGFA loan repayments. This pre-funding is part of our Treasury borrowing strategy.

Table 5

Breakdown of net debt

8. Debtors | Receivables

8.1 Rates receivables are similar to the same period in the 2025/2026 year, after allowing for rates income increases – the amount of the balance is due to the timing of the report. Other receivables are up on the prior year with weather event related subsidy and grant income recognised.

8.2 The receivables summary is set out below:

9. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.7 Acoustic Insulation Condition in Plan Change 81

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Jeremy Butler, Team Leader - Urban and Rural Policy
Report Authorisers:	Susan McLean, Group Manager - Strategy & Finance
Report Number:	RCN25-12-8

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To seek a resolution to include an acoustic insulation condition for new dwellings in the proposed Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ) under Plan Change 81 (PC81). The condition would help to manage adverse health and amenity effects from road traffic noise. This follows legal advice that the inclusion of the new condition could not rely on a previous resolution that allows for minor amendments and correction of errors to be approved by the committee chair.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 PC81 is pending notification to enable housing intensification and greenfield medium density development. Erroneously it did not include a condition to manage road traffic noise for new dwellings in the MDRZ.

2.2 Exposure to high levels of road traffic noise is internationally recognised as causing adverse health effects, including sleep disturbance, annoyance, and cardiovascular impacts (WHO, 2018).

2.3 Styles Group has provided preliminary advice recommending land use controls to require acoustic insulation and mechanical ventilation for dwellings near high-noise roads.

2.4 Three methods are available: (1) modelled overlay, (2) standardised distance, (3) refined standardised distance.

2.5 Due to time constraints, it is recommended to notify the plan change including a condition using a standardised distance (60m from white edge line), with the expectation that submissions on the plan change will allow refinement to a modelled overlay. A supporting policy amendment and definition is also proposed.

2.6 The proposed condition will ensure new dwellings provide for appropriate internal noise levels and occupant comfort, protecting health and amenity. Following advice from our consultant it will be limited to roads that cover 2000 or more vehicles per day. This means: State Highway 6, State Highway 60, Salisbury Road, Champion Road, Wensley Road, Oxford Street, Talbot Street, Hill Street, Ellis Street, Berryfield Drive, Queen Street, Aranui Road, Mapua Drive, Waimea West Road, Cambridge Street, William Street, Washbourn Drive.

2.7 Because the rules are to be applied in the Medium Density Residential Zone, the insulation requirements will only apply in that zone (and not existing Residential zone areas).

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Acoustic Insulation Condition in Plan Change 81, report RCN25-12-8; and

2. approves the inclusion of amendments to the wording of the Plan Change 81 Schedule of amendments to:

· Introduce a definition of “Habitable Room” to the Tasman Resource Management Plan;

· amend Policy 11.1.3.4 to include human health as a reason for mitigation of noise effects;

· amend Rule 17.1A.3.2 to include a condition requiring noise insulation, appropriate design and a commissioning test report for any new dwellings proposed to be built within 60m of the white edge line of identified roads; and

· any other consequential changes needed to explanatory text and supporting documents such as the Section 32 Assessment; and

3. delegates authority to the Strategy, Finance and Performance Committee Chairperson to make any minor amendments to Change 1 to the Tasman Regional Policy Statement and Plan Change 81 to the Tasman Resource Management Plan prior to notification

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 PC81 has been developed to enable urban growth and intensification in Tasman District, with rezoning for housing and business land in line with national policy and local strategies.

4.2 At the time of passing a resolution to notify PC81, no acoustic insulation condition was included for MDRZ dwellings near major roads.

4.3 Subsequent advice from Styles Group and NZTA Section 32 analysis highlights the need for such controls to protect residents from adverse health effects of road traffic noise.

4.4 The MDRZ includes sites adjacent to high-noise transport corridors, where future traffic growth is expected to increase noise exposure.

Progress of PC81 Notification

4.5 As well as a resolution to notify C1 to the Regional Policy Statement and PC81 to the Tasman Regional Policy Statement, the Strategy and Policy Committee in the previous term agreed to seek approval to use the Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) and/or an exemption to the plan stop legislation.

4.6 Both have been applied for, with a preference for the SPP. At the time of writing, no formal indication has been received from the Minister. However, staff have strong reason to think that the Minister will, before long, issue a direction to use the SPP. The direction may be issued this year, but it is not clear whether the plan changes will be able to be notified this year.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Issue:

5.1 International and national evidence (WHO, NZTA, Styles Group) demonstrates significant health risks from road traffic noise above 55 dB LAeq(24hr).

5.2 Without controls, new dwellings in the MDRZ may expose residents to unacceptable noise levels, impacting health and amenity.

5.3 Three methods for land use controls can be applied:

Modelled overlay: Uses acoustic modelling to define affected areas; most efficient and targeted but requires time and data.

Standardised distance: Applies a fixed setback (e.g., 60m) from white edge line; less precise but can be implemented quickly.

Refined standardised distance: Uses modelling to validate the setback; balances efficiency and practicality.

5.4 Given time constraints, a standardised distance is recommended for notification, with the intention to refine setback distances through submissions and subsequent hearing proceses.

Proposed Amendments:

5.5 A new definition of “Habitable Room” is to be included in Chapter 2 of the TRMP as follows:

Habitable Room – means the interior parts of a building used for any residential activity but excluding any bathroom, laundry, water closet, pantry, walk-in-wardrobe, corridor, hallway, lobby, clothes drying room, garage, carport or other space of a specialised nature occupied neither frequently nor for extended periods

5.6 The following amendment is made to Policy 11.1.3.4:

11.1.3.4 To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of traffic on human health and amenity values.

5.7 The following additional conditions are added to proposed Rule 17.1A.3.2:

(t) Any new building or alteration to an existing building that contains a habitable room within 60 metres of the white edge line of the following roads must be designed, constructed and maintained so that road traffic noise from does not exceed 40 dB LAeq (24 hour) in all habitable rooms:

(i) State Highway 6

(ii) State Highway 60

(iii) Salisbury Road

(iv) Champion Road

(v) Wensley Road

(vi) Oxford Street

(vii) Talbot Street

(viii) Hill Street

(ix) Ellis Street

(x) Berryfield Drive

(xii) Queen Street

(xiii) Aranui Road

(xiv) Mapua Drive

(xv) Waimea West Road

(xvi) Cambridge Street

(xvii) William Street

(xviii) Washbourn Drive

Written certification of compliance from a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Acoustic Consultant shall be submitted with the relevant building consent application. The certification shall be based on the existing measured or predicted noise levels plus 3 dB. Noise level predictions for the building may be modelled by a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Acoustic Consultant using a recognised computer modelling method for road traffic, having regard to factors such as barrier attenuation, the location of the dwelling relative to the road, topographical features and any intervening structures.

(u) If opening windows of habitable rooms must be closed to achieve the design noise levels in Condition (t) those rooms must be designed, constructed and maintained with a mechanical ventilation system that achieves the following requirements:

(i) Provides mechanical ventilation that can operate continuously to satisfy clause G4 of the New Zealand Building Code and that provides at least 1 air change per hour, but no less than 7.5L/s per occupant; and

(ii) Provides cooling and heating that is controllable by the occupant and can maintain the inside temperature between 18°C and 25°C when assessed using a 2.5% design weather condition for Tasman; and

(iii) Any system installed, must not generate more than 35 dB L_Aeq(30s) when measured 1 metre away from any grille or diffuser. The noise level must be measured after the system has cooled the rooms to the temperatures in (ii) above, or after a period of 30 minutes from the commencement of cooling (whichever is the lesser);

OR:

(iv) Alternatively, instead of (i) to (iii) above, a design verified by a suitably qualified and experienced HVAC expert stating the design proposed will provide ventilation and internal space temperature controls to meet or exceed the outcomes described in (i) to (iii) above.

(v) A commissioning report must be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the building demonstrating compliance with the mechanical ventilation system performance requirements in Conditions (t) and (u) above.

5.8 A distance of 60 metres is used as this is the current standard in the TRMP and has been applied to the Hope Bypass Road in existing rules.

Summary of amendments

5.9 A definition and policy are included to provide support to the new rule conditions.

5.10 New dwellings within 60 metres of a high-noise road must be designed and constructed to achieve an internal noise level of 40 dB L_Aeq(24hr) in habitable rooms.

5.11 Mechanical ventilation and cooling must be provided where windows need to be closed to achieve noise standards. Certification by a qualified acoustic consultant required at building consent stage.

5.12 These requirements are well-understood and routinely implemented by architects, builders, and HVAC professionals in New Zealand. Acoustic insulation and mechanical ventilation solutions are standard, with clear specifications and products readily available for compliance.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 NZTA research indicates that the health and social costs of road traffic noise exposure in New Zealand are substantial, measured in millions of dollars annually. Acoustic insulation and ventilation requirements add only 0–2% to building costs, representing a highly cost-effective measure to avoid these impacts.

6.2 No significant impact on Council budgets; costs are borne by developers/owners.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Notify condition using standardised distance	Quick implementation; protects health	May over/under-capture affected sites
2.	Wait for modelled overlay	Most efficient and targeted	Delays notification; not feasible for deadline. IF the minister grants the SPP then the timeline in the SPP notice must be followed. This may mean there is no scope to wait.
3	Do nothing	No regulatory burden	Residents exposed to health risks; not recommended. Very likely to be raised through submissions by NZTA. Will cause conflict and scope issues with state highways versus other busy rules

7.2 Recommended: Option 1 and then refine through submissions.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The proposed condition aligns with the Resource Management Act’s purpose to promote sustainable management and protect health and amenity.

8.2 Legal advice confirms a further resolution is required to include the condition, as it was not in the original PC81 notification version and is outside the scope of the existing resolution that allows for miner additions and corrections to be agreed by the committee chair.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Engagement with iwi has occurred throughout PC81 development; further consultation will be undertaken as part of the plan change process.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

10.1 The significance of PC81 was addressed previously. This significance assessment just relates to the issue of the additional condition.

10.2 The overall level of significance is considered to be low.

10.3 Extensive and comprehensive engagement was carried out for PC81 generally. The issue of acoustic insulation alongside major roads was not directly engaged on, but the evidence is clear, and the solutions are very standard. Any issues are therefore able to be resolved through the submission process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Will only impact developers and home owners who are developing or redeveloping close to major roads.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	Will support healthier homes
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	High	Intensification housing is a long term issue, with new buildings being in place for several generations
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The inclusion of requirements for acoustic insulation will be added to all relevant Council communication channels appropriate to Plan Change 81.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Risk of appeals or opposition from developers; mitigated by evidence base and opportunity for refinement through submissions.

12.2 Risk of over/under-capturing affected sites; addressed by intention to refine condition post-notification.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Acoustic insulation may support energy efficiency and resilience in dwellings.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The proposed condition supports national and local policy objectives for healthy, liveable urban environments.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Including an acoustic insulation condition for new dwellings in the MDRZ under PC81 is necessary to protect health and amenity, in line with best practice and national/international evidence. Notifying a standardised distance condition now allows timely implementation, with the opportunity to refine through submissions.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Include the proposed condition as a component of PC81. Once ministerial approval is gained notify PC81

16.2 Undertake targeted engagement and statutory consultation (open for submissions).

16.3 Refine the condition through the submissions and hearing process.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.8 Richmond Tennis Club Funding Request

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Rob Coleman, Reserves Officer - Recreation and Systems; Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	John Ridd, Group Manager - Customer & Community
Report Number:	RCN25-12-9

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 This report is to request Reserves Financial Contribution (RFCs) funding of $50,000 from the 2025/26 Richmond RFCs account to cover some of the cost of the Richmond Tennis Club’s new emergency access staircase, fire system and emergency lighting on its clubroom building in Jubilee Park, Richmond.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Richmond Tennis Club has requested funding towards the cost of replacing its emergency access stairs ($52,000) and permanent fire system and emergency lighting ($23,000) at its clubroom building at Jubilee Park, Richmond. The total cost is $75,000.

2.2 Staff propose funding 66% ($50,000) of the total cost from the Richmond Reserves Financial Contributions account. This is in line with the RFCs funding policy. The balance of the project cost would be covered by the Richmond Tennis Club.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Richmond Tennis Club Funding Request report, RCN25-12-9; and

2. approves the funding amount of $50,000 from the Richmond Reserves Financial Contributions Account 2025/26 to contribute to the cost of a new staircase, fire system and emergency lighting for the Richmond Tennis Club Building at Jubilee Park, Richmond.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Richmond Tennis Club need to construct a fire escape staircase on their clubroom building and a permanent fire and emergency lighting system. This is a compliance requirement essential for building safety, accessibility, and continued public use. Without it, the club cannot achieve full Code of Compliance certification, putting community access and event use at risk. Building consent for this project has been approved, and the Club is ready to proceed once funding is secured.

4.2 The Richmond Tennis Club is one of the largest and most active community tennis providers in Tasman. The club has a five year lease with the Council that expires on 30 November 2028.

4.3 The club delivers:

4.3.1 year-round tennis and pickleball opportunities for all ages and abilities;

4.3.2 community and social events promoting health, wellbeing, and inclusion; and

4.3.3 a welcoming hub supporting the Council’s strategic goals for active, connected communities.

4.4 The project is shovel-ready, with a confirmed quote from a local building company and can commence immediately upon funding approval.

4.5 The Richmond Tennis Club would contribute one-third ($25,000) of total costs and Council support via RFCs covering the remaining two-thirds ($50,000). The club has funds earmarked to cover its share of the project costs.

4.6 This project will:

4.6.1 bring the facility into full compliance;

4.6.2 improve safety and accessibility; and

4.6.3 ensure the clubrooms remain fit for purpose for community sport and social use.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Staff have considered the request for additional funding and recommend assisting the club with the funding shortfall up to a maximum of $50,000.

5.2 The Richmond Tennis Club provides a valuable service to the Richmond community by offering facilities for tennis and pickleball along with other social events.

6. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

6.1 The work ($50,000) will be funded within existing Richmond RFCs budgets.

6.2 The balance of Richmond account as at 30^th June 2025 is $12M. Overall the RFC accounts for all wards have a balance in the order of $24M, all of which is committed in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the contribution of $50,000 towards the club’s outstanding commitments	The club can meet their project funding responsibilities.	Requires the use of additional RFC funding
2.	Decline the funding request	No further RFCs used on this project	Club will be impacted financially and won’t receive code of compliance certification until they can pay outstanding regulatory bills

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 There are no known legal requirements relating specifically to this decision.

8.2 The club is required to complete the access and safety system works outlined before a code of compliance certificate can be issued under the Building Act.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 This decision has no known implications for iwi.

10. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	There may be some interest from other clubs.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	May impact on the club’s ability to operate and provide a community service as this decision will impact the club in terms of regulatory compliance.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	There could potentially be a significant impact on the club’s ability to continue operating.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N.A	Private club asset on Council owned land.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	N.A
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	N/A
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N.A	N.A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N.A	N.A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N.A	N.A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	N.A	N.A

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Communication has been carried out with the Richmond Tennis Club and internal Council departments including the Finance team.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If this decision is not approved, it may have financial impacts for the club that could jeopardise its ability to operate during the current season or even in the longer term if it does not obtain Code of Compliance and meet its regulatory obligations.

12.2 There could be a precedent set that has negative financial impacts for the Council if clubs on reserve land in similar situations apply for RFC funding to cover their additional development contribution costs.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 There are no known impacts on climate change from this decision.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 The request from the club for additional RFC funding to assist with project costs does not conflict with any policies or strategic plans.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The request for funding from the Richmond Tennis Club has come about due to work needed by the club to meet code of compliance requirements for an emergency staircase and emergency fire and lighting systems. On this basis it would seem reasonable to grant the club the funding to help them achieve a fully compliant building.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Should the funding be approved by Council prepare a funding agreement between the club and Council.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.10 Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2026

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Kelsey McLean, Senior Governance Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Robyn Byrne, Governance Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-12-11

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To present the Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2026 (Meetings Calendar) for adoption, in accordance with Clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 sets out requirements for written notification of meetings to local authority elected members.

2.2 It is standard practice for councils to adopt a schedule of meetings by resolution in order to meet those legislative requirements (Attachment 1).

2.3 The proposed schedule (Attachment 1) outlines the upcoming programme of Council, Committees, Subcommittees, Joint Committees, Community Boards, forums, citizenship ceremonies, LGNZ Conference dates, user groups and Youth Council meetings. It provides a high-level overview to support elected members in planning, preparation, and effective participation.

2.4 The proposed schedule is based on a four-weekly cycle for the Council and four (or six)-weekly cycle for Standing Committees and the Information Forum, six-weekly cycle for Community Boards, and quarterly for joint and single purpose committees, e.g., Audit and Risk Committee.

2.5 The proposed schedule also provides information on Public Holidays and School Holidays. A meeting-free week has been scheduled for the second week of each School Holiday period, aligning with Nelson City Council’s meeting-free weeks and providing for members to have some certainty around breaks.

2.6 It is noted that some meetings will be required to be arranged on an ‘as needed’ basis, for example, Submission Hearings, Contracts and Procurement Panel, Recreation Reserve Committees, Hall Management Committees, Community Facility Committees and Animal Control Subcommittee meetings.

2.7 The proposed schedule does not include workshops however Wednesday has been set aside for workshops and when confirmed they will be added to the Meetings Calendar.

2.8 To ensure efficiency and accommodate Council business, the schedule may be amended as required. Elected members will be provided with as much notice as possible of any changes, and timely agenda distribution and compliance with legislative requirements will remain a priority. This flexibility is permitted under Clause 19(6)(ii), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.9 The proposed schedule had been compiled when we were notified of potential Joint Committee name changes. The joint committees terms of reference and membership will be presented at the 11 December meeting, and if approved, the changes will be treated as a minor administrative update to the schedule and actioned accordingly.

2.10 Elected members also receive notification of upcoming Council meeting commitments for the following week through the weekly Tasman Update. In addition, the electronic Outlook meetings calendar and the elected members’ meetings paper portal, LGHub, are also kept up to date. Elected members can access the Outlook meetings calendar and LGHub via their Council laptops.

2.11 Council and Committee meetings are also detailed on the Council’s website via the Council’s meetings calendar and notified in the Council’s two-weekly publication Newsline.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2026 report, RCN25-12-11; and

2. in accordance with Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022, adopts the proposed Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2026 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3. notes that the Schedule of Meetings may be amended, as required, to enable Council business to be performed efficiently.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Adopting a schedule of meetings is in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and assists the scheduling of reports to promote efficient decision-making and work programme planning.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt the proposed meeting schedule	Provides clarity for elected members and staff regarding their meeting commitments and to meet legislative requirements	None identified
2.	Decline to adopt the proposed meeting schedule	None identified	Does not assist the Council to meet its legislative requirements
3.	Amend the proposed meeting schedule	None identified, any changes to the meeting schedule can be made as required	Does not allow staff time to consider the consequences of moving meetings – significant planning has been undertaken in developing the proposed schedule, taking multiple requirements and preferences into account.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 This decision is in accordance with Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 and the Tasman District Council Standing Orders.

7. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

7.1 This is a procedural decision and no engagement with iwi has taken place.

8. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

8.1 This is a decision for the Council, and no engagement is required to set the Council’s Schedule of Meetings, it is an internal process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

9. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

9.1 There are no direct budgetary consequences related to the adoption of the meeting schedule.

10. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

10.1 Staff recommend adoption of the Schedule of Meetings 2026; this will allow elected members to plan their other engagements/commitments accordingly and provide clarity for the public.

11. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

11.1 If the proposed Schedule of Meetings 2026 is adopted, staff will complete the necessary administration, this includes the provision of a Calendar of Meetings on the Council’s website for the public and the issuing of meeting invitations to elected members, so that their diaries are appropriately up to date with the meetings that they are required to attend.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Proposed Meetings Schedule January - December 2026

173

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2025

7.11 Waimea Water Limited - Annual Report 2025

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2025
Report Author:	Matthew McGlinchey, Finance Strategy & Planning Manager
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN25-12-12

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The Waimea Water Limited (WWL) Annual Report for the period ended 30 June 2025 is attached (Attachment 1). WWL representatives will attend the Council meeting to present an update on the project and to answer any questions on the Annual Report.

1.2 The attached copy of the Annual Report has been approved by the Company Board and was adopted by the Joint Venture Shareholders at the Company’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 7 November 2025.

1.3 The Company’s Annual Report meets the requirements of both the Companies Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4 The Company’s Annual Report was made available to the public once it was adopted by the shareholders at the Company’s Annual General Meeting.

1.5 There are no specific matters that staff need to bring to the attention of the Council.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Waimea Water Limited - Annual Report 2025, report RCN25-12-12; and

2. notes the delivery of the Waimea Water Limited Annual Report 2025 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1 For convenience, an excerpt of the report from the WWL Board Chairman, David Wright which is included in the Annual Report is reproduced below. The full report is attached (Attachment 1).

3.2 The Operating and Financial overview for the year is set out on pages 22 to 37 of the Annual Report. The performance of the Company against the Statement of Intent (SOI) is set out on page 11 of the Annual Report. There are no matters that staff need to bring to the attention of the Council.

3.3 The attached copy of the Annual Report has been approved by the WWL Board. It was presented to the shareholders and adopted at the Company’s Annual Meeting held on 7 November 2025.

3.4 The report has been provided to this meeting to coincide with the regular WWL presentation on the project and to allow the Council to consider the Company’s performance against the Statement of Intent. Any questions on the Annual Report should be addressed to the Company representatives during the presentation session.

3.5 The Annual Report has also been provided by the Company to Waimea Irrigators Limited as the other shareholder in the Company.

3.6 Extract of Report from Board Chair – David Wright: “This financial year stands as a defining period for WWL, marking the full transition from construction to operational status.

On 7 February 2025, the dam’s completion and opening was officially celebrated — a historic moment and the culmination of over two decades of vision, determination and collective effort, including six years of construction. The official opening was a chance to thank and congratulate all the people who made this much-needed infrastructure project possible, providing water security, economic benefit and prosperity to the region for generations to come.

At the opening celebration, many dignitaries were welcomed, including Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop, the South Island Minister James Meager, Nelson MP Rachel Boyack, Mayors Tim King and Nick Smith, Koata Ltd Chief Executive Hemi D Toia, as well as WWL directors, staff and guests. As the Prime Minister said on the day, this project is an “incredible legacy,” albeit one “we wish we’d got onto sooner.” And as Rachel Boyack noted, the region now has water security, which was something people across Aotearoa would be “very, very jealous of.”

The dam already demonstrated this value during the severe 2024 drought, augmenting flows to protect urban supply, support local industry and safeguard river health. This project is a testament to the engineering ingenuity and resilience of the team and partners who have worked tirelessly through unprecedented challenges to deliver an enduring legacy.

Over this year, key highlights include the operational transition, the achievement of full compliance with regulatory frameworks and the settlement of contractual disputes with the Contractor. The final project investment was $211.2M.”

4. Strategy and Risks

4.1 This is a routine matter and there are no strategic matters or risks that the Council needs to consider in noting the receipt of the WWL Annual Report.

5. Compliance with Funding and Other Arrangements

Overview

5.1 To ensure compliance by all parties, staff have developed a comprehensive timetable outlining reporting and refinancing obligations for the Waimea Community Dam scheme. This schedule addresses requirements under the financial and equity agreements as well as the Company’s responsibilities pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002. These obligations have been formally communicated to WWL. Staff have also contacted CIIL in late October to obtain an assurance that WWL and Waimea Irrigators Limited (WIL) have complied with the disclosure and other requirements set out in the financing arrangements. It is intended that this will be an annual request to CIIL actioned in July each year for the preceding financial year.

Historical Non-Compliance

5.2 WWL has previously failed to provide the required notice for financing and refinancing its loan drawdowns. This has necessitated Council staff seeking dispensations from the LGFA.

5.3 While these dispensations have been granted due to our strong relationship with LGFA, WWL has been formally advised that adherence to the notice periods specified in the Shareholder Advance Agreements is mandatory. Although we acknowledge the challenges WWL may face in engaging WIL and obtaining timely responses, these challenges do not exempt WWL from its contractual obligations. The agreements clearly outline default provisions in such circumstances.

5.4 Kelly Norris, General Manager of WWL, has assured Council that it has incorporated key dates into its forward planning and is implementing systems to ensure compliance. No further action is required on this matter at present.

Continuous Disclosure Requirements

5.5 As part of ongoing monitoring, the Council notes the continuous disclosure requirement under the Wholesale Water Augmentation Agreement (WWAA). Accordingly, WWL has been requested to write to WIL annually to obtain the reporting and records specified in Clause 11 of the WWL/WIL WWAA agreement.

5.6 Confirmation from WIL that these matters are in order prior to the commencement of irrigation season is critical to Council. WWL has confirmed that this process will commence in October 2025.

6. Policy | Legal Requirements | Plan

6.1 Under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2002:

6.1.1 A Council Controlled Organisation must, within three months of the end of the financial year (30 October), deliver to shareholders and make available to the public a report on the operations during the year.

6.1.2 The report must include the information required by sections 68 and 69 of the LGA 2002 namely:

6.1.2.1 A comparison of the Company’s performance with the Statement of Intent and an explanation of any material variations.

6.1.2.2 State the dividend (if any) to be paid.

6.1.2.3 Audited Financial Statements for the year prepared using generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP).

6.1.2.4 An audit report on the financial statements and performance measures.

6.2 WWL has met the statutory timeframe for delivering their Annual Report to shareholders.

7. Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

7.1 There are no financial or budgetary implications arising from this noting report.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The Company has met the Annual Report requirements in the Statement of Intent and delivered its report late but otherwise in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

9. Next Steps | Timeline

9.1 The Company has made their Annual Report publicly available on their website.

9.2 The Waimea Water Limited Annual Report (or a link to the report) will be published on the Council’s website within seven (7) working days of this meeting.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Waimea Water Limited Annual Report 2025

189

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor B Maru
Councillors	Councillor C Butler	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor D McNamara
	Councillor K Ferneyhough	Councillor P Morgan
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor T Neubauer
	Councillor J Gully	Councillor T Walker
	Councillor M Hume	Councillor D Woods
	Councillor M Kininmonth